Why would having to turn the volume up more than you’re used to be a problem? This probably means it has more dynamic range which is usually a good thing. As always, the mastering is more important than the format.
@Olik it’s definitely not a problem; it is rather an observation
For the few times I compared a DSD version of an album to it’s Flac (most often 24bits) equivalent, I tend to prefer the Flac version
Unless you’re using a site which allows you to compare the DSD to the PCM equivalent, the likelihood is that all you’re doing is comparing 2 different masterings. It’s not a fair comparison. If you compare the CD layer to the SACD layer on most audiophile hybrid SACDs (e.g. from Analogue Productions or Mobile Fidelity), it’s a fairer comparison because both layers will likely be mastered by the same engineer at the same time.
2 Likes
Yeah, you are correct. The master’s could indeed differ.
1 Like
I have a couple hundred dsd albums and the mastering differences are huge. Also, I find to really enjoy even the well mastered examples I have to turn it up LOUD-not just equivalent volume. My previous sacd player was superior to my ndx2 although it seems improved since the firmware update.
1 Like
SACD and not native DSD does not sound good
I am not sure that follows… the volume will be determined by the conversion output of the DAC. Remember PCM and DSD converted to PCM reconstruct differently, and typically all things being equal PCM will require more gain on the analogue output.
That may very well be true but I wasn’t talking about comparing PCM and DSD converted to PCM. Rather, I was making an observation that some people are forming opinions on PCM and DSD based on unfair comparisons. To give you an example, you may prefer an early CD edition of T-Rex’s ‘Electric Warrior’ over the Mobile Fidelity SACD but that doesn’t necesarilly mean you prefer PCM over DSD. They have been mastered by different engineers at different times using different sources. They sound very different! Now, of course if you were to compare DSD to DSD converted to PCM properly (with the conversion appropriately level matched) I would bet that most people would struggle to tell the difference or at least it would be very subtle. A good comparison of this nature would be the DSD version or Sony SACD of Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’ versus the 24 bit – 176.4 kHz version that was on sale a few years ago from HD Tracks. This was a DSD to PCM conversion.
If I follow you correctly, I agree, how a track is mastered significantly contributes to how it sounds as a finalised piece of work. In other words mastering is a key part of the creative process, and indeed is an involved and skilled activity, and why good sound engineers and production engineers are sought after…
I kicked off my career in studio engineering on a secondment with the BBC but took a different direction very early on… however I have tried to keep fairly familiar to the sound side on and off over the years, and one thing I know is apparent loudness is not all about overall levels or normalisation.
So yes a particular master is likely to have far more bearing on the appeal and feel of a piece of work, rather than the medium it is distributed on.
Absolutely. If a recording is mastered poorly (e.g. with excessive dynamic range compression, unsuitable EQ choices), it will sound bad no matter the format.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.